Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Trolls and harassers live off of causing chaos and misery on their intended targets. Maybe if more places would make it so that they are screaming off into the ether (with nobody to listen or pay attention to them), it'll discourage them (especially if they won't know if anything they are posting is visible to others or not)?

20 years working in IT taught me that people problems can't be solved with technology.

Sorry. I admit I don't know what the solution is. But I know what it isn't.

A big problem is you have groups of trolls who do this for sport. They talk online and compare notes. They find some group of people somewhere, pick an issue, and start sending harassing emails, posts, tweets, etc.

The people on the receiving end often think it's from others within their group when it's actually outside agitators who might only have the barest clue what the group is even about. So you wind up with atheists and gamers or whomever embroiled with endless infighting, and everyone sits around crying "How can people in our group be so horrible" and, well, they're mostly not. The professional (for lack of a better word) trolls sit back and laugh. They get off on it.

It's really the same as political rallies where the opposition will bus in protesters that might not even know what the rally is about. Cars and flags get burned and bricks thrown and windows broken regardless. Some people get excited and charged up over chaos and violence, virtual or otherwise.

Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Shadowbanning. Reddit does it. I think Twitter might. Unfortunately, it can also be used to silence voices the site mods simply don't like. This is going to be a growing problem as fewer and fewer corporations control more and more of our communications. They aren't beholden to Constitutional laws the same way the government is. Shit's going to get all Deus Ex.

This is the first article/discussion I have read on this topic that realizes the complexity of the problem and that the solution has to be extremely contextualized and personalized to be effective. Taking anonymity away or using voting systems is simply not effective for the worst offenders...they simply don't align to any social norms or even get off on being disruptive.

So, I like the suggestion of taking a spam approach where each user decides and the decision only affects them. Disqus just implemented a Block User mechanism that effectively mutes the offender and while their comments are still in the overall conversation, they are not visible to me. It really works and it has made the comments sections for some sites, like BGR, almost habitable again.

This is the first article/discussion I have read on this topic that realizes the complexity of the problem and that the solution has to be extremely contextualized and personalized to be effective. Taking anonymity away or using voting systems is simply not effective for the worst offenders...they simply don't align to any social norms or even get off on being disruptive.

I love the sites that switched to forcing Facebook logins for comment to clean up the discourse.

Yeah, that worked well. :-P I'm stunned what people will post under their own name with their picture and everything.

Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Shadowbanning. Reddit does it. I think Twitter might. Unfortunately, it can also be used to silence voices the site mods simply don't like. This is going to be a growing problem as fewer and fewer corporations control more and more of our communications. They aren't beholden to Constitutional laws the same way the government is. Shit's going to get all Deus Ex.

So set up some sort of meta-moderation system. Distribute the decision to a lot of people, not just a few. If you have a community that is large enough, take something that is report, show it to 50 or 100 randomly selected members and have them moderate (and give them an incentive to meta-moderate when they are asked - maybe a 5%-10% discount on membership or something or the other) that comment, instead of having a single person control it.

Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Shadowbanning. Reddit does it. I think Twitter might. Unfortunately, it can also be used to silence voices the site mods simply don't like.

Nope, Twitter does not have a shadowban feature. Instead it has:

Block - this stops someone from seeing your tweets or responding to you. This is obvious to the blocked user.Mute - this stops you from seeing the muted users responses. The muted individual can still read your tweets and respond to you, but you never see the response.

All of this is at the individual level - there is no native mechanism to have a block propagate to other users, though there are third-party mechanisms that accomplish this.

Neither of these mechanisms "silence" the user as other people can still see their tweets. Instead people who don't want to deal with you can ignore your shit.

Where this becomes problematic is if you're being targetted by a large group. Muting/blocking thousands of individuals is just not practical for most people.

Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Trolls and harassers live off of causing chaos and misery on their intended targets. Maybe if more places would make it so that they are screaming off into the ether (with nobody to listen or pay attention to them), it'll discourage them (especially if they won't know if anything they are posting is visible to others or not)?

What if a harasser posts some sort of threat, like "You better respond right now or else"? These freaks don't like being ignored, and oftentimes will take it to a whole other level if they feel they are being ignored--especially if they're fixated on an individual.

Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Trolls and harassers live off of causing chaos and misery on their intended targets. Maybe if more places would make it so that they are screaming off into the ether (with nobody to listen or pay attention to them), it'll discourage them (especially if they won't know if anything they are posting is visible to others or not)?

What if a harasser posts some sort of threat, like "You better respond right now or else"? These freaks don't like being ignored, and oftentimes will take it to a whole other level if they feel they are being ignored--especially if they're fixated on an individual.

Do you really think someone responding to the troll is going to result in a more preferable outcome than ignoring them?

So set up some sort of meta-moderation system. Distribute the decision to a lot of people, not just a few. If you have a community that is large enough, take something that is report, show it to 50 or 100 randomly selected members and have them moderate (and give them an incentive to meta-moderate when they are asked - maybe a 5%-10% discount on membership or something or the other) that comment, instead of having a single person control it.

Well, if the corporation is evil and suppressing viewpoints, why would they spend money on that? And if they were willing to do that, it'd be cheaper to just stop filtering people.

Weren't there sites that used to have "ghost bans" where if you're enough of a jerk, they'll set it so that nobody else can see your posts, but to you, you still look like you are posting normally?

Trolls and harassers live off of causing chaos and misery on their intended targets. Maybe if more places would make it so that they are screaming off into the ether (with nobody to listen or pay attention to them), it'll discourage them (especially if they won't know if anything they are posting is visible to others or not)?

What if a harasser posts some sort of threat, like "You better respond right now or else"? These freaks don't like being ignored, and oftentimes will take it to a whole other level if they feel they are being ignored--especially if they're fixated on an individual.

Or else what? Physical threats should be criminally prosecuted. Or perhaps they make another account, which you end up blocking. There're only so many accounts twitter would let one make on an ip.

Public blacklists seem like a great idea. More people who are empowered to add to the list(moderators?) more quickly we get rid of the nuisance. It also works on the free speech front. If you don't like Trump then you don't gag him, instead you simply choose to not attend his rallies. Everyone wins.

One problem is the financial incentives. Not of the harassers, or of the harassed, but of the platform. To a social network, a group of harassers - that spend hours and hours on the network every single day, and create lots of non-threatening posts and user interactions - is a lot more valuable than a victim that blocks people, avoids posting in public and that may even end up dragging the network into a legal mess.

If you're InstaTwitBookit+, your financial incentives probably point you towards booting the victims and promoting the trolls.

So set up some sort of meta-moderation system. Distribute the decision to a lot of people, not just a few. If you have a community that is large enough, take something that is report, show it to 50 or 100 randomly selected members and have them moderate (and give them an incentive to meta-moderate when they are asked - maybe a 5%-10% discount on membership or something or the other) that comment, instead of having a single person control it.

Well, if the corporation is evil and suppressing viewpoints, why would they spend money on that? And if they were willing to do that, it'd be cheaper to just stop filtering people.

Just out of curiosity, how many corporation owned websites out there are suppressing viewpoints because they're evil? And are you being forced to go there to express yourself?

I feel like there's this urge among some in Ars to be instinctually repulsed at the suggestion of "blacklists" or "ignore functions" because of free speech issues. But the logical corollary to free speech is that I also have the freedom to choose not to listen to your free speech, either.

Blacklisting, coming back into fashion again. McCarthy would be proud!

Blacklisting, under McCarthy, means creating a list of people you suspect are Communists and preventing them from getting jobs or working in their professions.

Blacklisting, in this current sense, means that I, as a member of the public, can choose not to listen to you if I wish.

Does that sound anywhere at all similar?

Hah, Blacklisting in the current sense, like on Twitter with those blocklists, means blocking everyone who holds an opposing political viewpoint because you find their very opinions hate speech. Because you hate their ideology, because you fear it, just like McCarthy.

My 0.02€: Fighting spam and harassment are only superficially similar.

Major components of the technological solutions to fighting spam are independent of content.Eg, blacklisting sources of Unwanted Bulk Email and anti-spoofing mechanisms like SPF/DKIM/DMARC don't depend on content.

Whether if you're trying to sell Viagra or asking donations for UNICEF, if you're engaging in UBE or if you're spoofing @somebank.com, you'll end up rejected or in the spambox.

Internet is not a "safe space". it never will be. Most of the "internet harassment" that I see on twitter is nothing more than criticism or disagreement. Only a small portion of this harassment involves threats on someone's life. If you get those, report people responsible to the police immediately. If more common disagreement type of comments bother you, grow a thicker skin or just don't engage in social media with strangers.

What these "safe space" advocates are pushing for is nothing more than censorship and thinly veiled fascism.

I feel like there's this urge among some in Ars to be instinctually repulsed at the suggestion of "blacklists" or "ignore functions" because of free speech issues. But the logical corollary to free speech is that I also have the freedom to choose not to listen to your free speech, either.

Tech can do some of this with opt-in automations like spam filters. They're earmuffs, not gags, so there isn't really a compulsion or freespeech element.

Gagging people only infringes the 1stA if it's a government channel or gag, but there's more to ponder than the letter of the law.

Blacklisting, coming back into fashion again. McCarthy would be proud!

Blacklisting, under McCarthy, means creating a list of people you suspect are Communists and preventing them from getting jobs or working in their professions.

Blacklisting, in this current sense, means that I, as a member of the public, can choose not to listen to you if I wish.

Does that sound anywhere at all similar?

Hah, Blacklisting in the current sense, like on Twitter with those blocklists, means blocking everyone who holds an opposing political viewpoint because you find their very opinions hate speech. Because you hate their ideology, because you fear it, just like McCarthy.

So what? Are people not free to choose what to listen to and what to ignore? Who's the real fascist? The person ignoring somebody (even if it's for stupid reasons) or the person forcing someone else to listen to something they choose not to?

If a song comes on the radio while you're driving and you vehemently hate that song - are you forced to listen to it? Or can you change the channel? Or turn the radio off?

Hah, Blacklisting in the current sense, like on Twitter with those blocklists, means blocking everyone who holds an opposing political viewpoint because you find their very opinions hate speech.

Not really? You can ignore viewpoints you don't like by simply not following them (I don't follow Trump, for example, because he regularly says stupid, adolescent shit.) Block lists like these keep people you don't want to listen to from sticking themselves into your world when they're unwelcome.

Quote:

Because you hate their ideology, because you fear it, just like McCarthy.

Gather evidence, if possible a combination of screencaps and archiving (lolwut.to is one example). That way no one can accuse you of telling a lie. The truth with evidence is the best weapon you can have since the scum is pretty much like roaches: Once they're in the spotlight, they scurry back into the hole from where they came from.

Of course, that's useless if the social media site where it's happening has employees who are friends with the creeps.

Internet is not a "safe space". it never will be. Most of the "internet harassment" that I see on twitter is nothing more than criticism or disagreement. Only a small portion of this harassment involves threats on someone's life. If you get those, report people responsible to the police immediately. If more common disagreement type of comments bother you, grow a thicker skin or just don't engage in social media with strangers.

What these "safe space" advocates are pushing for is nothing more than censorship and thinly veiled fascism.

This guy is getting a lot of downvotes and he may be considerably out of context but he's got a bit of a point.

Some people in our society are becoming too sensitive to actually function in it.When a law student asks a professor not to use the expression "violate the law" because its "triggering", something has gone beyond reasonable.

This is the first article/discussion I have read on this topic that realizes the complexity of the problem and that the solution has to be extremely contextualized and personalized to be effective. Taking anonymity away or using voting systems is simply not effective for the worst offenders...they simply don't align to any social norms or even get off on being disruptive.

So, I like the suggestion of taking a spam approach where each user decides and the decision only affects them. Disqus just implemented a Block User mechanism that effectively mutes the offender and while their comments are still in the overall conversation, they are not visible to me. It really works and it has made the comments sections for some sites, like BGR, almost habitable again.

Yes what is really good for society is to let people only hear the side that they agree with. I would say it's only a matter of time before having a good heated discussion on the internet becomes impossible due to technological solutions that are anything but.

Oh and disqus is garbage, I refuse to comment on any site that uses it.

This guy is getting a lot of downvotes and he may be considerably out of context but he's got a bit of a point.

A bit, but he outright dismisses everything that isn't a direct threat on people's lives. A constant torrent of harassment that just skirts the edge of threatening isn't suddenly OK.

This isn't about simple disagreement. This is about a nasty smattering of people who pick targets and either individually harass them or enlist like-minded groups to make their lives hell, some of which may arise from simple disagreement that one of the parties simply can't let go of.

Blacklisting, coming back into fashion again. McCarthy would be proud!

Blacklisting, under McCarthy, means creating a list of people you suspect are Communists and preventing them from getting jobs or working in their professions.

Blacklisting, in this current sense, means that I, as a member of the public, can choose not to listen to you if I wish.

Does that sound anywhere at all similar?

No blacklisting would be you as a member of the public are allowed to prevent others from seeing the posts you find undesirable. What you are referring to would be blocking a user which is already possible in many places.

I'm gonna pull a Bernie Sanders but IMNHO a good chunk of the problem lies with moderator bias/cronysm. If the people doing the policing were given an incentive (see money) to do their job well then we wouldn't have this mess in social media. Of course, that's just wishful thinking and yes, you can laugh at me for appealing to people's good nature on the internet.

Blacklisting, coming back into fashion again. McCarthy would be proud!

Blacklisting, under McCarthy, means creating a list of people you suspect are Communists and preventing them from getting jobs or working in their professions.

Blacklisting, in this current sense, means that I, as a member of the public, can choose not to listen to you if I wish.

Does that sound anywhere at all similar?

No blacklisting would be you as a member of the public are allowed to prevent others from seeing the posts you find undesirable. What you are referring to would be blocking a user which is already possible in many places.

Edit: forgot to complete sentence.

A public black list is an opt-in procedure. People agree to use a public blacklist. It's not imposed on anyone against their will.

Internet is not a "safe space". it never will be. Most of the "internet harassment" that I see on twitter is nothing more than criticism or disagreement. Only a small portion of this harassment involves threats on someone's life. If you get those, report people responsible to the police immediately. If more common disagreement type of comments bother you, grow a thicker skin or just don't engage in social media with strangers.

What these "safe space" advocates are pushing for is nothing more than censorship and thinly veiled fascism.

I wonder what the college students of the 60's would have thought about making colleges and universities "safe spaces"?

The whole idea of safe spaces is incompatible with a free society, of course many don't really care as they would prefer safety over freedom.

Internet is not a "safe space". it never will be. Most of the "internet harassment" that I see on twitter is nothing more than criticism or disagreement. Only a small portion of this harassment involves threats on someone's life. If you get those, report people responsible to the police immediately. If more common disagreement type of comments bother you, grow a thicker skin or just don't engage in social media with strangers.

What these "safe space" advocates are pushing for is nothing more than censorship and thinly veiled fascism.

This guy is getting a lot of downvotes, but he's got a bit of a point.

Some people in our society are becoming too sensitive to actually function in it.When a law student asks a professor not to use the expression "violate the law" because its "triggering", something has gone beyond reasonable.

I don't disagree with him or you in principle. In practice, it's related but also tangential. It feels shoehorned into the discussion because it's an issue getting a lot of press and generating a lot of discussion. Posting a massive image into a thread also looks like attention whoring regardless of the circumstances - it makes your post stand out and draw attention away from other people's points. I've noticed that posting large images on Ars posts tend to have binary outcomes. People overwhelmingly love or hate them.

All that said, I happen to agree that the rise of "safe spaces" and is a legitimate threat to speech on campuses. I don't agree that trying to tackle online harassment is mostly being pushed by those people, or if it is I haven't seen ample evidence to convince me yet. I didn't vote on the post or yours either way. It's possibly a salvageable in terms of the discussion: any technological tools that are used to combat legitimate harassment may be usurped and twisted to unacceptable ends. That should definitely be a consideration when considering how to implement any proposed solutions.

Internet is not a "safe space". it never will be. Most of the "internet harassment" that I see on twitter is nothing more than criticism or disagreement. Only a small portion of this harassment involves threats on someone's life. If you get those, report people responsible to the police immediately. If more common disagreement type of comments bother you, grow a thicker skin or just don't engage in social media with strangers.

What these "safe space" advocates are pushing for is nothing more than censorship and thinly veiled fascism.

I wonder what the college students of the 60's would have thought about making colleges and universities "safe spaces"?

The whole idea of safe spaces is incompatible with a free society, of course many don't really care as they would prefer safety over freedom.

I've never seen anyone invoke "freedoms" (or associated phrases) outside of a war or when they just really want to be an arsehole.